By Matt Phillips

In a move that indicates he needs help steering the ship, Mr. Chambers recently brought on a new chief operating officer, his first clear No. 2 since 2007. To be sure, Cisco became so dominant in some areas under Mr. Chambers that it is hard not to lose market share. But even if he is preparing big changes, he mightn’t be the best man to see them through since it is his strategy that needs to be revamped. Making a clean break could require finding new leadership.

Alright MarketBeaters, let’s take it to our executive committee. What do you think?

Comments (5 of 8)

Unfortunately, after so many years at a company's helm, the leader's view can be obliterated with baggages and potentially wasting time covering up what hasn't worked. The company is not decisive enough and now hogged by incompetent managements that makes you wonder how they got there in the first place. It's time to bring in a more decisive, fresh eyed CEO who can restructure and redirect without all the baggage..

8:58 am April 12, 2011

Break Up wrote :

The company is all things to all people. Not many companies have figured out how to stay focused and grow the business under this model. I belive Cisco need to change, shed or sell off divisions and re invent itself

2:13 am April 10, 2011

Ritesh Tandon wrote :

John Chamber is main pillar behind Cisco. Their is always up and down in Industry, this is just minor storm and you will see upturn soon

8:59 am April 8, 2011

JOHN CHAMBERS IS EXCEPTIONAL wrote :

CHAMBERS' LEADERSHIP IS ETHICAL -

WHAT IS CHAMBERS LEAVES AND CISCO BECOMES LIKE INTEL??? AT INTEL, THEIR CEO ACTIVELY AND SHAMELESSLY ENGAGED IN UNETHICAL MONOPOLISTIC METHODS TO HURT COMPETITION - including bribing Dell 6-billion dollars to break antitrust laws.

We need CEOs like Chambers to lead with integrity and wisdom.

The Otellinis of the business world are getting too abundant. Business without ethics will turn America into an awful jungle.

7:56 am April 8, 2011

Hevelius wrote :

The Headline Question was "Should Chambers GO?" but when you go down to vote the smaller letters above give the question as Should Chambers Stay, which is the complete opposite question.

I think many people probably clicked Absolutely without realising this.

As the above poster says, it's an extremely misleading way of gaming a poll - pose a question and then let people vote on the opposite of it. Very poor show.

Thanks for reading MarketBeat. We would like to direct you to MoneyBeat, the Wall Street Journal’s brand new global blog. MoneyBeat unites MarketBeat, The Source, Overheard and all the Deal Journal blogs, bringing together all the market, M&A, IPO and hedge-fund news from those blogs into a 24-hour hub for finance news. Check it out and let us know what you think at moneyblog@wsj.com.

About MarketBeat

MarketBeat looks under the hood of Wall Street each day, finding market-moving news, analyzing trends and highlighting noteworthy commentary from the best blogs and research. MarketBeat is updated frequently throughout the day, helping investors stay on top of what’s happening in the markets. Lead writers Paul Vigna and Steven Russolillo spearhead the MarketBeat team, with contributions from other Journal reporters and editors. Have a comment? Write to paul.vigna@wsj.com or steven.russolillo@wsj.com.